Posted
by
timothy
on Monday July 11, 2011 @07:20PM
from the team-america-world-police-was-a-documentary dept.

LibRT writes "The irony-challenged folks at the UN have named North Korea chair of the Conference on Disarmament, which is heavily focused on the prevention of a nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. The Canadian government has boycotted the convention, calling it an 'absurd' turn of events: 'North Korea is simply not a credible chair of a disarmament body. The fact that it gets a turn chairing a United Nations committee focused on disarmament is unacceptable, given the North Korean regime's efforts in the exact opposite direction.'"
Note that Libya was once president of the UN's Human Rights Commission, and only recently removed from its successor in interest, the Human Rights Council.

In other news, UN Secretary General as quoted today as saying "The reprsentative from Burundi owes me 10 euros", followed by laughter broken up with occasional phrases like "suck it", "who's your daddy", and various other remarks.

The UN has a number of small committees that don't matter, that small, isolated countries care about because they feel it gives them some power. And it does give them recognition, even if nothing more.

The objection is based on the idea that DPRK should specifically be excluded from what would otherwise be a routine rotation through the member states for chairmanship of the committee, because of its explicit goals toward proliferation. From a diplomatic perspective, being permitted to participate in the rotation is a reward for DPRK's bad behavior.

A lot of times, to regular joes, diplomatic actions bear little connection to how people behave in reality. Heads of state become unduly offended by perceived

(It is lose, not loose). How is shunning the country going to help to encourage them to become better members of the world community? If you stop listening to any group of people then it causes resentment to fester. This is never a good thing at any time, but especially when talking about nuclear weapons.

North Korea should have a role in a dispute of which they are part, especially at a time when the country is falling into disarray need to be given shown the path of enlightenment(1). The alternative is to

How is shunning the country going to help to encourage them to become better members of the world community? If you stop listening to any group of people then it causes resentment to fester.

I'd feel better about that if thought the DPRK's ambassador represented a people instead of just an illegitimate government. I don't have a lot of hope for the DPRK peacefully reforming. I'd like to be proven wrong, mind.

(It is lose, not loose). How is shunning the country going to help to encourage them to become better members of the world community? If you stop listening to any group of people then it causes resentment to fester. This is never a good thing at any time, but especially when talking about nuclear weapons.

North Korea should have a role in a dispute of which they are part, especially at a time when the country is falling into disarray need to be given shown the path of enlightenment(1). The alternative is to have a country with nothing to lose by going to war.

----------(1) Yes, I know that sounds a bit hippie!

It sounds a lot hippie.

How is it helping to never have any consequences when a nation deliberately, repeatedly and blatantly violates everything the UN stands for? It is a slave state, where the population is callously used up as so many food powered robot slaves. Those born with disabilities are still put to work in the fields most suited them, guinea pigs in testing the lethality of their chemical weapons research program. That's right, an escaped military officer explained how watching a fellow officer s

NK went ahead with bomb productions when George Bush stopped dealing with them, cause they's the bad guys and he's the good guys, I guess. They immediately broke the UN seals on their Plutonium stockpile and started refining them. When they'd tried something similar to Clinton, he threatened to bomb them if they didn't back down, and gave them lots of goodies when they did. Bush, typically, did nothing.

If NKs stance towards disarmament should disqualify them, then shouldn't the US be disqualified if the Republicans gain power again? The Bush administration tried to set a policy of increased nuke capability and even floated a plan for decreased threshold for using them.

Because essentially saying to another sovereign nation "do you want/need stuff? not willing to set up an economy that can produce or trade for it directly? just focus on weapons development, and we'll give you stuff so you don't blow us all up!" is a good idea? Is that really the precedent we want set?

Essentially saying to another nation, if you try to build nukes you will get it, if you don't you get stuff. Let's contrast with Bush's stance: You try to make nukes, we'll snub you one minute and look the other way the next. You give up making nukes, we will invade you, kill you and kill your people. Which way is smarter?

NK went ahead with bomb productions when George Bush stopped dealing with them, cause they's the bad guys and he's the good guys, I guess. They immediately broke the UN seals on their Plutonium stockpile and started refining them. When they'd tried something similar to Clinton, he threatened to bomb them if they didn't back down, and gave them lots of goodies when they did. Bush, typically, did nothing.

If NKs stance towards disarmament should disqualify them, then shouldn't the US be disqualified if the Republicans gain power again? The Bush administration tried to set a policy of increased nuke capability and even floated a plan for decreased threshold for using them.

Clinton's goodies included offering them 2 nuclear reactors and enormous supplies of oil bought and paid for with American money. Basically, offering billions of dollars of aid and 2 nuke plants for their previous bad behavior. Isn't the lesson that threatening and bullying America is a good way to get paid handsomely?

Did you miss the part where Clinton threatened to bomb them if they didn't give in? That's not an option anymore. On the one hand you have a messy deal full of threats and bribes, on the other, NK gets the bomb. If you prefer the latter, you got it.

Did you miss the part where Clinton threatened to bomb them if they didn't give in? That's not an option anymore.

It never was. North Korea's nukes haven't changed much, yet. The North's conventional, 50's era, long range artillery was already sufficiently stocked and positioned to turn Seoul into a million little craters on a moments notice.

On the one hand you have a messy deal full of threats and bribes, on the other, NK gets the bomb. If you prefer the latter, you got it.

Moral Equivalence you say... wait are you seriously suggesting that there is any kind of variation in how bad it is to vaporize a few million people - mostly civilians ?Sorry - yes they ARE equivalent, no matter who did it to who or why - it's always going to be just about the most evil thing anybody can do in the world with current technology - and there is no moral variation on that.

The only reason the USA got away with it is because they could pretty honestly say that they had no idea of the true effect

wait are you seriously suggesting that there is any kind of variation in how bad it is to vaporize a few million people - mostly civilians ?

Which nuclear bombs killed a few million people?

it's always going to be just about the most evil thing anybody can do in the world with current technology

Yes. That's future tense.

SIXTY SIX YEARS ago, two small atom bombs dropped on a fanatical (remember kamikaze?) enemy to close out a long, declared war in not the same as instant global thermonuclear (i.e. hydrogen bomb) war.

By your logic, there must be cases today where dropping a nuke would be okay because the droppers are sufficiently "good" and the government of the country it's droppped on sufficiently bad that all those innocent civilians dying one of the most painful deaths known to man is acceptable ? Can you seriously believe that ?

None yet, but it's what you're dealing with if you discuss it today. There is hardly a city in the world with less than a million people.

>>it's always going to be just about the most evil thing anybody can do in the world with current technology

>Yes. That's future tense.No it isn't, In fact It's future PERFECT tense. Meaning it's a current state (which implies it's been like that in the past) and will remain so. Perfect tenses are used to indicate

That has nothing to do with nuclear weapons though. The US would have won the war eventually anyway, the bombs just sped the process up. When Japan eventually surrendered they would have done exactly the same thing, i.e. set up a constitution that does not allow them to attack other countries.

Besides, negotiation works. Look at the IRA's campaign in the UK. For decades the Conservative government took a hard line with them and got nowhere, but within a few years of the Labour government engaging with them t

To paraphrase Clausewitz, war is negotiation by other means. A strong military influences the results of the negotiating table. For example, nuclear weapons are the ultimate bargaining chip at the superpower level and it is worth noting that the use of the two atomic bombs in the Second World War did indeed bring Japan to the negotiation table on terms favorable to the US and its allies.

The USSR also stopped invading countries directly after the Second World War, leading to the Cold War (and the many pro

"the country which throw the bombs invaded Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan,"

Indeed, if the US got nuked by Japan or Germany in WWII, the US might not have invaded other countries after that...

I should add, show me the people in Taiwan or South Korea who are mad today about the US "invasion" there. Both of those countries still seek US military support today against their aggressive autocratic neighbors.

The only reason they haven't been glass cratered is because the important parts of S. Korea are just too damn close to do it safely so the world is stuck in this retarded diplomacy dance.

Actually, the reason that N. Korea has not been taken out is because China has an interest in maintaining it as a client state. I am not entirely sure what that interest is because every time I start to think I understand the relationship between the two countries, one or the other (usually N. Korea) that does not make sense in that context. However, I think that ultimately it comes down to China feeling that, even though the current N. Korean regime is an unreliable client, the risk is too great that any r

The only reason they haven't been glass cratered is because the important parts of S. Korea are just too damn close to do it safely so the world is stuck in this retarded diplomacy dance.

Actually, the reason that N. Korea has not been taken out is because China has an interest in maintaining it as a client state.

Nope, GP had it right. Your post was only relevant in 1950 until around the time of the Sino-Soviet split, when North Korea was trying to play one against the other to gain the maximum amount of military aid from both the Chinese and the Soviets when they had their split.

The reason war won't start on the peninsula now is because of a kind of "mutually assured destruction" situation there. North Korea is careful to keep its level of provocation low enough that not going to war is always less costly than d

Why would you be concerned about them "quitting"? That would explicitly make a statement that continued membership masks: that they have no interest in participating in any kind of global governance, oversight, or community, and see the world as divided into two sections: those that are theirs, and those that are inferior.

North Korea had their best shot in the 90's with the so-called Agreed Framework [wikipedia.org]. What's interesting is that it broke down when the U.S. accused them of having a clandestine uranium enrichment program. And that one sentence is all we still know today publicly about it.

For instance, Germany often is heard talking about human rights. Germany! But what country can? Name a single one that does not have a laundry list of human rights abuses to its name. Probably even south-sudan, the newest country, already has a past soaked in blood. Oh it has? Well that proves it then.

The US, the country with the biggest arms budget, holding the chair for disarmerment?

The chair rotation happens precisely for this reason, to allow those who have not rewritten history to make themselve look P

I agree with you up to a point. Germany has recognised how bad things went for them and written very strong laws to prevent it ever happening again. I think it is fair for Germany to accuse others of human rights violations because they got their own house in order. The US is in a worse position because Guantanamo is still in use.

I think the point is that most of those other countries have learned from past mistakes. How about we don't have countries that are actively engaged in egregious human rights violations on the human rights commission. Unfortunately the nuclear weapon genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in. As much as people like like to beat on the US for our use of nuclear weapons or our massive stockpiles (we probably don't need North Dakota being a world nuclear super power) the simple fact is as long as som

Ah, well, that makes it all good. Nothing wrong with a state, that is arming itself with illegal nuclear weapons as fast as it possibly can, heading the Disarmament Committee as long as it's their *turn*.

The problem is, they're only "illegal" because the UN says so. There is no international law except for that which nations agree on through organizations like the UN. So, all the posters who just want North Korea out of the UN don't seem to quite grasp what that would mean. As for North Korea being head of this committee, can anyone tell me if the US, France, UK, Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa (while it had nukes), China, USSR/Russia/Belarus/Kazakhstan/Ukraine have ever headed it? With the exceptions

If a nation decides not to honor a treaty, then they don't honor the treaty. It's not illegal for them to do so. In the case of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, article X allows for a country to withdraw from the treaty. What set of laws are you referring to under which breaking the treaty is "illegal"? A treaty between just two nations doesn't really count as "international law" since it's not really binding on anyone except those two nations (and whether it's really binding to those nations is a litt

I never said anything about not getting upset about it, just that there isn't really any international law. The closest we can come is organizations like the UN. Either that or total anarchy. Don't try to misconstrue what I'm saying as support for North Korea gaining nuclear weapons. That's _not_ what I was saying. All I was saying is that you can't have it both ways. You can't declare that actions like developing nuclear weapons are "illegal" while simultaneously questioning the legitimacy of international

Yep, I find it incredible how quick people are to bash the UN when it's actually upholding a principle that most Slashdotters hold dear when they're not blinded by the irrational hate of the UN. The UN is actually allowing fairness here- it's giving everyone a chance, and you may disagree with them, but in the international community they no less have a say than anyone else.

We might not like the way other countries are run- but here's a hint- they probably don't like the way ours are run either.

What's your alternative venue for the countries of the world to talk to each other rather than shooting at each other when there is an issue that straddles across their borders? Also, any time the US wants to opt-out and leave international politics entirely to the other countries of the world to sort out on their own, go ahead. It's a free planet, and the rest of us might be better off.

Oh, wait, but that's not what you meant. You meant you would still be able to be the global bully and/or meddler if you

Because the UN can't actually do anything of any substance without the US agreeing to it?Because (although it's against the rules) the US likely gains a ton of intelligence by spying on the diplomats in New York?Because the UN occasionally give international stamp of approval to what the US is going to do anyways?Because it makes the smaller countries feel less butt-raped by the US?Because if the US withdrew, and the UN decided to do something the US didn't like, instead of issuing a nice veto in the Securi

Can someone please explain why the U.S. should host, subsidize, or be a member of the U.N. given its current condition and activities? In all seriousness, I can think of no reason whatsoever.

The U.S. tends to look down on the U.N., as do most truly powerful countries. But the U.S. also is incredibly undereducated about the U.N. compared to many other nations, in part because we look down on the U.N. and our media provides information so slowly that snails eclipsed their information store long ago, and in part because as a powerful country with our own independent foreign agenda, we frankly tend to have more news that's related to what we are doing than we do about what the U.N. is doing.

But the U.N. is still important--it provides support for some important humanitarian work, for one (UNICEF and UNODC come to mind). It provides an international mechanism for justice and oversight of elections and regime change when countries are ready for those things. (The International Criminal Tribunals and later the International Criminal Court, for example.) It also determines whether wars are legal or illegal under International law, and arbitrates certain small disputes under international law. The legality of a war will influence the legitimacy of that war in the eyes of the world.

The Security Council was effectively neutered for the cold war by the perpetual split between Russia and and the U.S. China had no rep for a while in the 50s, and because of that the U.S. got approval for the Korean War (i.e. the UN action against North Korea). China learned its lesson and started sending representatives to the security council again. The U.S., similarly, as one of the only world powers with a veto over security council resolutions--a power that would NEVER be given to the US in a new, similar international body today--has a great interest in maintaining its presence in the United Nations.

In addition, the level of isolationism in the US is frankly frightening. It's nothing like North Korea, of course, but there are a LOT of Americans who are incredibly insular. It isn't as bad as some of the numbers suggest--the very few Americans having a passport is more a testimony to the fact that you have to go farther to cross a border than you do in Europe--but it's bad. Most people in the US know effectively nothing about modern international affairs, and only a small percentage know anything about international history. During the presidential election, for example, then-candidate Obama expressing his willingness to go into Pakistan if necessary was a relatively small bit of trivia here, and most people had no freaking clue how upset his statements to that effect made pretty much everyone in Pakistan. Fast-forward a few years, and you see the consequences of that ignorance--the public's response to Pakistan's being upset with the actual raid isn't "We know how big a deal this was for you, we felt we had to do it, and we'll make it up to you," it was "if you're upset it must be because you were hiding Osama!"

We need more international involvement, not less. Better education. Why the hell we don't have every schoolchild in America watching good conferences on major international issues via the web and answering quizzes on them I have no idea. Not every day--but do four conferences a year on different subjects, and they'd learn a hell of a lot.

The Iraq war was legalized by security council resolution--granted, they worded the resolution so that most of them could pretend to protest while the US could use it as pretext for invasion, but they went along with it, which effectively makes it legal under international law. (Either it was done b/c the US bribed everyone or because everyone knew the US would do it anyway and they didn't want the security council to lose legitimacy, but it *was* legal.) You could argue the whole security council were wa

The Iraq war was legalized by security council resolution--granted, they worded the resolution so that most of them could pretend to protest while the US could use it as pretext for invasion, but they went along with it, which effectively makes it legal under international law.

1. And it's still war of aggression. UN is not authorized to pardon criminals.2. Powell gave UN fake evidence of nonexistent Iraqi weapon development programs. That alone invalidates pretty much everything that came out of it.

China had no rep for a while in the 50s, and because of that the U.S. got approval for the Korean War (i.e. the UN action against North Korea). China learned its lesson and started sending representatives to the security council again.

Umm, no.

The USSR was occasionally boycotting the UN about then, in order to express their displeasure with it. During one of its boycotts, the UN approved a resolution calling for aid to South Korea to repel a "bandit invasion" from North Korea.

In addition, the level of isolationism in the US is frankly frightening. It's nothing like North Korea, of course, but there are a LOT of Americans who are incredibly insular. It isn't as bad as some of the numbers suggest--the very few Americans having a passport is more a testimony to the fact that you have to go farther to cross a border than you do in Europe--but it's bad. Most people in the US know effectively nothing about modern international affairs, and only a small percentage know anything about i

How about because we pay for the silly shit! I know that's kind of lame, but who else is stupid enough to foot the considerable bill for the UN, while being treated like the scum of the Earth by a bunch of 2 bit dictators that can't even pay their membership dues?

The only difference between the US and North Korea, is that the world still believes in the US.

Every time I see a conservative say/write something more stupid than I ever thought possible, within a week I invariably see a left-wing fool like you write something so completely fucking moronic that I keep voting conservative.

If that's the purpose... the Anti-American League... let 'em finance themselves and do so from outside the country.

I don't mean that 100% sarcastically perhaps 99%. I do see the logic of having a counterweight to the only superpower. But we can't be expected to be the ones that pay for it or voluntarily yield any sovereignty to them, if that's the case.

I also don't see the logic of foreign aid to countries and peoples who despise us. Haters gonna hate, so why bother helping if the helping hand is going

This has nothing to do with being irony-challenged and everything to do with representation.

1) the UN is an international body which encourages participation from all. You don't make peace with your friends, you make it with your enemies.

2) the Conference On Disarmament is not like the Security Council

3) the chair of the Conference On Disarmament is appointed on a rotational basis, so the UN has not deliberately and fecklessly chosen North Korea; they are a member of the Conference (they need to be so we can discuss disarmament with them) so the chair comes to them eventually.

4) the chairmanship period is ONLY SIX WEEKS LONG

5) without such bizarre situations it would be difficult for the world to stand up and mention the bitter irony and discuss North Korea's record, now wouldn't it?

I appreciate this isn't going to stop the armchair John Boltons of slashdot, and I consider this a service to others who might otherwise feel the need to raise their blood pressure to deal with the inevitable idiots. I got this one guys; you can deal with it when Israel gets the chair.

While all of this is true, and important to know before reacting, I think it also worth noting the situation as an example of how the UN is impotent at accomplishing certain goals because of the immovable structure of procedure that has pervaded the entire body from top to bottom.

What the UN is really good at is illustrating just how nationalistic the world still is.

While you make good points about the lack of any actual harm due to NK's chairmanship, it's probably due more to the general uselessness of this sort of activity than the design of the committee. Nuclear disarmament will not arise due to committee hearings at the UN. Hell, nothing of any political significance will come from UN committees, save for sternly worded declarations aimed at tyrants who could care less. Let NK lead this committee permanently if keeps the nutjobs occupied.

The only political body in UN that has any relevance whatsoever is the Security Council, and even then only its permanent members. The rest of UN political organizations are there mostly for lulz (I don't know any other reasonable explanation for the current membership of UNHRC), and in any case, all they do is write strongly worded condemnations - mostly of Israel.

Now, UN is not entirely useless in a sense that it does have a bunch of non-political organizations that actually do useful work, like UNESCO. It's probably worth keeping it around for those, with political circus being an unfortunate attachment.

Do not underestimate the fact that the UN provides a relatively neutral framework for even enemies to get together and talk about stuff. Considering the childish games that diplomats like to play with withdrawing their embassies and so on, it is important to have a stable and reliable point where the children can go and have a talk. I prefer that over them using their toys to kill each other.

Look, the UN is not perfect, but as the saying goes, the perfect is the enemy of the good. The UN plays an important

Note that I didn't say that criticism of Israel on human rights grounds is invalid. Some of it is, some of it isn't. However, it is pretty self-evident to anyone familiar with the basic facts that Israeli human rights violations are clearly not larger in scope than those routinely practiced in many other countries, including some on UNHRC. Heck, it suffices to remember DPRK alone to understand why this is BS.

The reason why Israel is targeted so much is because of its geopolitical alignment as a Western coun

TFS implies that there was some kind of specific decision to choose North Korea to preside based on an assessment of merit, but this is not the case. The rules of procedures for the Conference of Disarmanent state (in rule 9): "When the Conference is in session, the Presidency of the Conference shall rotate among all its members; each President shall preside for a four-working-week period."

The United States deserves the chairmanship, on a semi-permanent basis.

In terms of volume, the United States is doing more to disarm itself than any other country. We presently have disarmament operations underway over Afghanistan, Libya, and to a lesser extent Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

I don't think anyone gets why North Korea is actually an ideal choice for the UN Disarmament chair. Check out the website [un.org] and you'll get a clue. Sure, there's lip-service from the council on WMDs and nuclear weapons, but the major effort right now is toward disarming the civilians of every country. And in that regard, North Korea is an excellent example of how thoroughly it can be done, and a perfect choice to lead the effort in teaching other countries to do the same.

Despite Eric Holder's efforts with ATF's "Gunrunner" and "Fast and Furious" programs seemed to have backfired, and the disarmament media effort in North America will be significantly curtailed due to the inept handling of that false flag effort. A country like North Korea - probably the world leader in successful disarmament of its citizens, is the perfect choice for restarting the international effort, and assisting the United States in making better progress in that regard.

Despite Eric Holder's efforts with ATF's "Gunrunner" and "Fast and Furious" programs seemed to have backfired, and the disarmament media effort in North America will be significantly curtailed due to the inept handling of that false flag effort. A country like North Korea - probably the world leader in successful disarmament of its citizens, is the perfect choice for restarting the international effort, and assisting the United States in making better progress in that regard.

So what you are saying is our government should follow North Korea by oppressing it's citizens and taking away their rights; because that would just make life simply grand like how the North Koreans are living right now.

So what you are saying is our government should follow North Korea by oppressing it's citizens and taking away their rights; because that would just make life simply grand like how the North Koreans are living right now.

Well, if you support civilian disarmament, then you should follow the leader in civilian disarmament. Pretty obvious when you think about it. Call it "oppression" if you want to, but that just sounds like hyperbole. Have to do what's right for the country and the global community. If you let Americans have all those guns around, how will they ever join the new world order?

Well, if you support civilian disarmament, then you should follow the leader in civilian disarmament. Pretty obvious when you think about it. Call it "oppression" if you want to, but that just sounds like hyperbole. Have to do what's right for the country and the global community. If you let Americans have all those guns around, how will they ever join the new world order?

Well I don't support civilian disarmament, because it is our constitutional/amendment rights to bare arms. And as for American joining the new world order, i do not know exactly what new world order you are talking about because what I have read and seen on the news the world is pretty much going to hell in a hand basket; and I rather be in a country that allow me to have guns rather than ones that take it away from me.

Also playing COD is fun; but it's much more fun when you go to a range and have the real

My understanding is that he won it because of the hope of peace he brought. I have a feeling the real reason was because he wasn't Bush. No I am not trying to bash Obama or support Bush, but Obama hadn't done anything at that point especially since the period for nominations had closed only 11 days after Obama had taken office. So what did he do in those 11 days to merit the prize other than not being Bush?

The US is reducing its nuclear forces, including massive reductions (a large majority of its total nuclear arsenal) since 1991, while fielding no new warhead designs or nuclear delivery systems. Or were you referring to the Russian Federation, which has reduced its total number of warheads while continuing to actively develop new nuclear first-strike platforms, like the RS-24 and the Bulava?